To say that things like recall can not be done with positive means alone is not true. I personally do not choose to do it that way but it can and has been done to a high degree.

Show me the dog that has been trained to recall with positive only and give me some time. I bet beans against baseball bats I can get him to come to me or a stimulus of my choosing instead of his handler. Same dog trained with a combination of reinforcement and punishment? I won't make the same bet.

Really? Because I have seen dogs trained your way that I have done the same thing to. In fact it was a titled bitesport dog. No training method is perfect including the one that you are advocating.

Purely positive is a misnomer. Many trainers think there are 2 consequences: giving a reward and giving a punishment. And if they only give rewards, it's a good thing, and good=positive, right? Well, wrong. Is being positive for cancer a good thing? No, it just means you have cancer. Let me explain.

From a behaviorist point of view (where all of dog training stems from) there are 4 consequences (which are used in human behavior and animal behavior). In these consequences you can give something or remove something; and it can lead to an increase or a decrease in behavior. Positive is NO MORE than giving something or there being a presence of something (e.g., cancer). Negative is NO MORE than taking something away. Reinforcement ALWAYS leads to an increase in behavior; punishment ALWAYS leads to a decrease in behavior.

WHAT you give and take away decides whether there will be an increase or decrease in behavior.

So, let's put everything together:

If, for positive reinforcement, you are giving something to increase behavior, what are you giving? Good or bad? The example I use with my students: if I want you answer questions more (an increase in this behavior) would I yell at you for answering them (giving them something bad)? No. I would give them something good, like bonus points (which are extra credit points), for answering questions.

Positive punishment: giving something to decrease behavior. Would I give bonus points for students who are text messaging their friends in class? No, b/c I'm trying to decrease the behavior of text messaging, so why would I give them something to raise their grade? I would give them something bad, I might kick them out of class for text messaging their friends.

Now, where it gets confusing:

Negative reinforcement: I am trying to take something away to increase behavior. Would I take something good or bad? Well, let's say I want my students to answer more questions. Would I take away their participation points for answering questions? No...but, I might take away their weekly pop quizzes. See, most students would view weekly pop quizzes as a bad thing. If I take them away b/c students are asking more questions, they're more likely to continue to answer more questions.

Negative punishment: I am trying to take something away to decrease behavior. I don't want my students text messaging, so would I take away their pop quizzes everytime I catch them text messaging? No...I would take away participation points. Points are a good thing, but I'm taking them away...people don't want to lose valuable points in an already difficult class, so they won't text message...

I know this is just semantics, but most trainers don't use these terms correctly...sometimes they don't b/c it's just easier not to...but some don't realize that there are 4 consequences. I'll be honest, I was beginning to think that most trainers were ignorant to the fact that there were more than 2 consequences, and maybe dog trainers don't use them...most of my knowledge of this stuff comes from my background as a psychologist (who specializes in learning and cognition), but I'm currently enrolled as a correspondent student in Jerry Bradshaw's dog training school, and all 4 of the consequences and how they can be applied to training a dog are discussed in his course materials...so, maybe it's just semantics, but I think a much better term would be "Purely PR" (purely positive reinforcement).

Semantics or not, it's a VERY good thing to bring up as I am obviously an offending member. I get lazy, I use the incorrect terms, and I apologize and stand corrected.

I do think that most people only see positive as treats and food and negative as leash corrections, prongs, and such. I am constantly guilty of this on a superficial level, even though I do know better.

Great post.

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." -Anatole France

Semantics or not, it's a VERY good thing to bring up as I am obviously an offending member. I get lazy, I use the incorrect terms, and I apologize and stand corrected.

I do think that most people only see positive as treats and food and negative as leash corrections, prongs, and such. I am constantly guilty of this on a superficial level, even though I do know better.

Great post.

Thank you....my students often misunderstand the fact that positive doesn't mean good...I, typically, bring one of our dogs in when I go over this section. And I use them for a demonstration of the 4 consequences...and they're always surprised to think that positive has a different meaning in this context than something being good...but it makes the "lightbulb turn on" when they see me correcting the dog, and I explain what it is, and why it's that...

Charles - I don't know the circumstances of what you are talking about, nor the level of training of the dog, nor what the distraction was, but every dog has a final breaking point.

In my opinion, the average dog needs an actual consequence for their action, and more of a consequence than a "bad dog" from their owner. Also, with self rewarding behaviors, especially when the dog has succeeded, fixing that behavior can take far longer than I personally would consdier reasonable.

Here is a concrete example from a board I used to be on. The member has pet ducks and her dog killed two of them. She posted looking for help on how to solve the problem. She received two different kinds of advice:

1. From about everyone else on the list - start far from the ducks, reward the dog looking at you. Over time, move closer to them and reward the dog focusing on you. If the dog can't focus, move farther away and start over. Keep doing this until you can get near the ducks and the dog will ignore them.

2. Mine - put the dog on a prong collar and a long line. Back tie the dog and let it charge the ducks. The dog will receive one hell of a correction, end up flat on his back and will think twice about going after the ducks in the future. It may take two or three times, but I doubt it.

I was completely ignored. I posted it again. I was ignored again. After the third time I was told that it was "mean" to set the dog up like that. Oh really? Ask the ducks how they feel about it. The dog gets an owie or the duck dies. Not much of a question for me (or the ducks). The dog knows what the reward is for chasing ducks - a dead duck in his mouth. I don't know of a treat that beats that.

Will the desensitization work? Sure, someday. In the interim, how many times do you "test" the dog? And how do you know if your training worked? Well, if the duck doesn't die then it worked... if it didn't and your dog needs more desensitization work, well, you're down another duck. Someday it will work, or it won't. When the dog dies of old age and is still chasing ducks, well, it won't once it's buried.

I was a member of a hardcore PR only list for a wile (agbeh on yahoo.) There were a number of trainers there, though you are not allowed to give training advice (whatever.) I joined in an effort to broaden my horizions in training. I finally gave up on it when they applauded a member for teaching her dog to sit reliably... after months of work. For me, that is not a reasonable amount of time. Is it for some people? Obviously yes, but I'm really not thinking it is reasonable for the rest of the dog owning world.

I trialed for my CD with Riggs last year. We didn't get any legs, all due to handler error. I was so keyed up that my dog didn't have a clue what was going on and his reaction to that was to break his sit on the first day. Things went downhill from there and he got less and less attentive the more I got stressed. The less attentive he got the more stressed I got, and we self destructed. I finally pulled him because it wasn't worth it. Anyway, I was told by another PR trainer that the reason that he broke his sit and later quit heeling was because I trained with corrections and if I had trained with PR only then he would have wanted nothing in the world more than to stay right at my side every step; not even the hotdog that was being eaten by a spectator at ring side (I was ready to kill). I asked her to back up her words with all of her 200 point obedience routines... funny enough she couldn't produce a single one.

My personal opinion is that most dogs need to know that there is an actual, physical, consequence for disobeying. Most mis-behaving comes from a dog wanting something else more than it wants what you have. That's where the self reward comes in, and high value self rewards are nightmarish to break, even with compulsion. Breaking a sit to sniff the ground or go look out the window? Sure, probably not a problem. To chase a ball? a little more difficult, but doable. To chase a squrril? Well, that would depend... has the dog managed to catch and kill one before? If yes, well, I'm not betting that PR only is going to make a dent any time soon.

At some point you have to take that leap of faith and let your dog do it's own thing. In the case of the ducks, the dog can decide to ignore them or go kill another one. The dog makes the decision based on previous experience, and there are two consequences for chasing ducks - 1. he doesn't get a cookie or 2. ending up flat on his back in a far less than pleasant manner. My take on the matter is that option number two is the one that will make a far more lasting impression on the dog. YES, the dog might blow you off anyway, but I feel the odds are far more in the ducks favor with method two.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

sooooo...this thread started because i was wondering how useful ecollars are in the sport world and such. i personally have trained tre two different ways. his basic obedience: mind me the first time i say it, sit, down, heel, come, etc, i taught positive and i proofed with corrections. his advanced obedience, focused heel, come with a nice front, look, platz (which to him is dropping immediately), and most of his protection work i have done almost exclusively motivational, using only verbal "no!" or "eh eh eh" as corrections and then starting over. he is VERY obedient as far as basic obedience goes, but not all too enthusiastic about it. he is VERY obedient in his advanced obedience (although still learning), but he does it with power and enthusiasm. the verbal "no!"just about crushes him, like "oh no- i'm not doing what i have to do to get rewarded and now i have to start over-damn!" we're still working through distractions, but his focus on me during his advanced obedience is crazy, so his recalls are pretty kryptonite using positive methods only, mostly because any time he broke it he found out that whatever he broke it for wasn't worth it, and also because he is fixated on me, and a little oblivious to everything else.

so i've had a lot of success with both. as tre gets things together i will do some proofing with him, but i think a hard correction or a shock would kill his drive, and he wouldn't do that pretty ears perked intense focus business he does with me now, and i've gotten that by being REALLY patient and building a serious foundation (i pretty much had to start over with tre after learning more about advanced obedience-poor dog, being saddled up to me as my guinea pig!)

all i'm trying to say is, there's a place for both. if i were walking down the street normally with tre heeling, he wouldn't chase a squirrel because he knows there are consequences, he's been taught otherwise and corrected. when we are working advanced obedience, he wouldn't chase it because he most likely hasn't even noticed it or at least cares more about what we're doing. i'm sure there is some overlap, but i've kept the training almost entirely separate (mostly because i obedience trained him long before sports were even a glimmer in my eye).

although a note on the motivational stuff- he's in high drive, and i can't expect him to be in high drive all the time, he needs to have basic manners for the everyday stuff. which is why i've used different methods for the different goals.

On September 11 2007, mnp13 wrote:Charles - I don't know the circumstances of what you are talking about, nor the level of training of the dog, nor what the distraction was, but every dog has a final breaking point.

Actually you do know the circumstances. I'm not going to name names. What was the distraction? Me standing still while the dog was being recalled in a demonstration of how great his obediance was. Not really a breaking point.

And you are right every dog does have a breaking point. But every method has it's weak points as well, including yours...and mine.

In my opinion, the average dog needs an actual consequence for their action, and more of a consequence than a "bad dog" from their owner. Also, with self rewarding behaviors, especially when the dog has succeeded, fixing that behavior can take far longer than I personally would consdier reasonable.

Consequences can be bad like you are implying or they can be good. The question for an individual trainer needs to make is what one would be best, not nessarilly the quickest for them as a trainer and for the individual dog.

1. From about everyone else on the list - start far from the ducks, reward the dog looking at you. Over time, move closer to them and reward the dog focusing on you. If the dog can't focus, move farther away and start over. Keep doing this until you can get near the ducks and the dog will ignore them.

2. Mine - put the dog on a prong collar and a long line. Back tie the dog and let it charge the ducks. The dog will receive one hell of a correction, end up flat on his back and will think twice about going after the ducks in the future. It may take two or three times, but I doubt it.

Or the consequence will be that the dog will associate the pain with the ducks and, once they get a chance, still go after them. You can't say that can't happen with our breed.

I just heard a story of a Pit Bull that was sprayed by a skunk then proceeded to kill it. Hmmm....I guess that correction didn't work.

I was completely ignored. I posted it again. I was ignored again. After the third time I was told that it was "mean" to set the dog up like that. Oh really? Ask the ducks how they feel about it. The dog gets an owie or the duck dies. Not much of a question for me (or the ducks). The dog knows what the reward is for chasing ducks - a dead duck in his mouth. I don't know of a treat that beats that.

A "treat"? That's belittling to the method. PR is as hardcore as compulsion. It's not some feel good hausfrau method. It's backed up by a lot of science and real world practical proof.

How would your method work if you were teaching the same dog to herd the ducks? I don't think it would be effective at all.

Will the desensitization work? Sure, someday. In the interim, how many times do you "test" the dog? And how do you know if your training worked? Well, if the duck doesn't die then it worked... if it didn't and your dog needs more desensitization work, well, you're down another duck. Someday it will work, or it won't. When the dog dies of old age and is still chasing ducks, well, it won't once it's buried.

There are trainers that use positive means to control a problem dog (for instance a dog that kills ducks etc) through actually teaching them to herd the target animal. Yes it's true. Her name is Carolyn Wilki http://www.raspberryridgesheepfarm.com/index.aspx

I was a member of a hardcore PR only list for a wile (agbeh on yahoo.) There were a number of trainers there, though you are not allowed to give training advice (whatever.) I joined in an effort to broaden my horizions in training. I finally gave up on it when they applauded a member for teaching her dog to sit reliably... after months of work. For me, that is not a reasonable amount of time. Is it for some people? Obviously yes, but I'm really not thinking it is reasonable for the rest of the dog owning world.

This contradicts this

I trialed for my CD with Riggs last year. We didn't get any legs, all due to handler error. I was so keyed up that my dog didn't have a clue what was going on and his reaction to that was to break his sit on the first day. Things went downhill from there and he got less and less attentive the more I got stressed. The less attentive he got the more stressed I got, and we self destructed. I finally pulled him because it wasn't worth it.

Anyway, I was told by another PR trainer that the reason that he broke his sit and later quit heeling was because I trained with corrections and if I had trained with PR only then he would have wanted nothing in the world more than to stay right at my side every step; not even the hotdog that was being eaten by a spectator at ring side (I was ready to kill). I asked her to back up her words with all of her 200 point obedience routines... funny enough she couldn't produce a single one.

Funny enough, neither can you. So what is your point? Your method is better? Obviously not.

Most mis-behaving comes from a dog wanting something else more than it wants what you have. That's where the self reward comes in, and high value self rewards are nightmarish to break, even with compulsion. Breaking a sit to sniff the ground or go look out the window? Sure, probably not a problem. To chase a ball? a little more difficult, but doable. To chase a squrril? Well, that would depend... has the dog managed to catch and kill one before? If yes, well, I'm not betting that PR only is going to make a dent any time soon.

Once again, it's being done as we speak.

At some point you have to take that leap of faith and let your dog do it's own thing. In the case of the ducks, the dog can decide to ignore them or go kill another one. The dog makes the decision based on previous experience, and there are two consequences for chasing ducks - 1. he doesn't get a cookie or 2. ending up flat on his back in a far less than pleasant manner. My take on the matter is that option number two is the one that will make a far more lasting impression on the dog. YES, the dog might blow you off anyway, but I feel the odds are far more in the ducks favor with method two

.

Bottom line both methods can work and do. And both methods can fail, and have.

Have you trained Riggs to not go after other dogs and squirells or whatever? If so, from everything you are saying you should be able to go just about anywhere with him and he would be pretty much 100% bomb proof. Is this the case?

michelle-every dog breaks a sit or a down every now and then, even though they are pretty much the most elementary parts of training. i've seen dogs that have their butts glued to the floor with purely motivational training, that will do it if you are skipping, running, jumping, others are flashing toys all around that dog, etc. THAT takes a long time, and i would think that's what the lady was referring to. not "it takes months to teach 'sit'", because sit takes maybe 5 minutes to teach, but, "it takes months to get your dogs ABSOLUTE focus using only PR, but you'll get amazing results out of it." do i agree with her that you shouldn't do any corrections? not so much, but i have, from experience, seen that the hyper-attentive automatic maneuvers type focus is awesomely achieved by serious patience and positive reinforcement. i've found tre performs WORSE doing advanced obedience if i have him leashed up with his pinch, because he knows he can get a physical correction and so he's not full of that great excitement. this is why i haven't taught him any of THOSE things with physical corrections. i think that's probably what the lady was referring to.

and besides, the counter "back it up with how many 200pt scores you have" is kinda silly, because RARELY does anybody do perfect, especially because of the human element, both on the handlers side and the judges side. there is SOME subjectivity to it. personally i wouldn't like some stranger telling me what works for my dog too much either, but consistently high scores are one thing, and very impressive, the occasional 200pt score, if any, is also SUPER impressive, but kinda just the cosmos aligning in your favor that day!

and once again- you've made reference to using positive reinforcement to teach a dog to heel and it taking months to walk to the end of the driveway, and that pr to teach a reliable sit makes you want to kill, but at the same time, if we're talking about a FOCUSED heel with an IMMEDIATE sit (which is the type of thing you do in a CD), the second the word starts to come out of your mouth, that can be done nicely with pr and verbal corrections only. for a lot of working dogs, just saying "no" and turning around to ignore the dog is like the worst thing that could ever happen to them, they are so bummed that they are further away from earning their reward they are hyper vigilant the next time around. i think physical corrections are a must for everyday obedience, and CAN be used nicely in advanced/focused obedience, but i also see dogs that are RIDICULOUS (in a good way) that have never had a correction, and lackluster dogs with avoidance or freezing behaviors that have been taught with corrections.

obviously i'm not trying to tell you what's best for you and your dog, riggs seems like he's probably a handful like most pits tend to be, i'm just saying, the lady was probably sticking her nose where it didn't belong inadvertently, but i don't totally disagree with her.

i've seen dogs that have their butts glued to the floor with purely motivational training, that will do it if you are skipping, running, jumping, others are flashing toys all around that dog, etc. THAT takes a long time, and i would think that's what the lady was referring to.

Actually, no. She was referring to teaching the dog to sit without having to lure it there every time. It's great that she is happy with those results, but that has been my point over the course of this entire discussion... reasonable time. My view of reasonable is obviously different than that woman's and probably different than a lot of people's. In respect to self rewarding and often dangerous behaviors, "reasonable time" gets much much shorter.

it takes months to get your dogs ABSOLUTE focus using only PR, but you'll get amazing results out of it."

I agree. You can absolutely get great results with PR... and you can get great results from compulsion as well. A dog that is trained with compulsion, correct, fair, compulsion usually looks just as happy as a dog trained with PR. No, not every dog, but most. Your dog doesn't so you changed your methods. That is commendable, not everyone is willing to do that.

and besides, the counter "back it up with how many 200pt scores you have" is kinda silly, because RARELY does anybody do perfect, especially because of the human element, both on the handlers side and the judges side.

And I never would have said that to anyone other than the person who I was talking to. This same person said that "if you can't train your dog using only PR then you should never own anything other than a fish." She was totally serious and meant exactly what she said.

personally i wouldn't like some stranger telling me what works for my dog too much either, but consistently high scores are one thing, and very impressive, the occasional 200pt score, if any, is also SUPER impressive, but kinda just the cosmos aligning in your favor that day!

Again, I totally agree on this one. That same person's scores weren't even consistantly high, so frankly she didn't have a leg to stand on.

In my opinion, the average dog needs an actual consequence for their action, and more of a consequence than a "bad dog" from their owner. Also, with self rewarding behaviors, especially when the dog has succeeded, fixing that behavior can take far longer than I personally would consdier reasonable.

Consequences can be bad like you are implying or they can be good. The question for an individual trainer needs to make is what one would be best, not nessarilly the quickest for them as a trainer and for the individual dog.

Well, if you have read any of my posts, you'd realize that I am referring to negative consequences in realtion to not following a command that is known and understood.

Or the consequence will be that the dog will associate the pain with the ducks and, once they get a chance, still go after them. You can't say that can't happen with our breed.

I just heard a story of a Pit Bull that was sprayed by a skunk then proceeded to kill it. Hmmm....I guess that correction didn't work.

Not quite. The ducks are going about their daily duck lives and the dog charges and gets a correction. There is nothing to draw the line between duck and the correction.

The skunk was a target and the dog was in "combat" with it and the dog got sprayed. The skunk was not passive, it actively "attacked" the dog. The next time that dog sees a skunk it will probably do after it. This is a big problem with dogs that have attacked porcupines, they remember the porcupine "attacking" them over and over but they are focused on the target that is hurting them, so they continue to attack it. The next time, they want to "get back" at it. I know four dogs who have tangled with porcupines and all four have tried to do it a second time (or in the case of my parent's dog, a third.) Will every dog? No, of course not.

When a dog is activly going after (or trying to go after) a dog, it is in drive and focused on that dog. If you give it an incorrect/poorly timed correction then the perception of the dog is that the correction is related ot the other dog.

For dogs not trained to do so, a passive object does not illicet the same reaction and associations as an acitve/challenging one.

How would your method work if you were teaching the same dog to herd the ducks? I don't think it would be effective at all.

Well, if you were teaching the dog to herd the ducks then you wouldn't want the dog to stay away from the ducks so what does that have to do with anything? She wanted to solve the problem of the dog chasing and killing the ducks teaching the dog to herd them never entered into the discussion. "My method" was to keep the dog from looking sideways at the ducks - "Going after ducks sucks."

I was a member of a hardcore PR only list for a wile (agbeh on yahoo.) There were a number of trainers there, though you are not allowed to give training advice (whatever.) I joined in an effort to broaden my horizions in training. I finally gave up on it when they applauded a member for teaching her dog to sit reliably... after months of work. For me, that is not a reasonable amount of time. Is it for some people? Obviously yes, but I'm really not thinking it is reasonable for the rest of the dog owning world.

This contradicts this

I trialed for my CD with Riggs last year. We didn't get any legs, all due to handler error. I was so keyed up that my dog didn't have a clue what was going on and his reaction to that was to break his sit on the first day. Things went downhill from there and he got less and less attentive the more I got stressed. The less attentive he got the more stressed I got, and we self destructed. I finally pulled him because it wasn't worth it.

Actually, no they don't. The dog breaking was due to HANDLER ERROR, as clearly noted in the post. Reread it. No handler error would have produced a completely different result, as evidenced by his 8 and 10 minute downs in training with dogs retreving in the ring behind us, 8 dogs in the ring with us and our instructor weaving in and out around the dogs and stepping over them. Me totally freaking out and displaying body language that he perceived as "bad" illicets a distinct and not uncommon reaction - "if mom's freaking out that bad then something is really wrong here, I'd rather be over there with her instead of way over here." A quite common problem with people new to showing. The same thing happens at horse shows with new riders. Wound up handlers equal misbehaving animals.

Anyway, I was told by another PR trainer that the reason that he broke his sit and later quit heeling was because I trained with corrections and if I had trained with PR only then he would have wanted nothing in the world more than to stay right at my side every step; not even the hotdog that was being eaten by a spectator at ring side (I was ready to kill). I asked her to back up her words with all of her 200 point obedience routines... funny enough she couldn't produce a single one.

Funny enough, neither can you. So what is your point? Your method is better? Obviously not.

Gee, funny, I never said that I had one. Please, go find me the post where I said I did. The person I was talking to stated that any dog trained with PR would never want to leave your side ever, and never want to do anything but what you taught it to do. Quite frankly, that's a load of horse pucky... no one here has said any method is infallible, I personally feel that proofing with compulsion is more reliable.

Have you trained Riggs to not go after other dogs and squirells or whatever? If so, from everything you are saying you should be able to go just about anywhere with him and he would be pretty much 100% bomb proof. Is this the case?

Well, yes, yes I have, quite reliably actually. Not long ago he was worked in the immediate proximity of 4 other intact male dogs. Off leash? No, I'm not stupid and that's a risk that isn't worth it to me. And you'll have to show me where I ever said my dog was bomb proof, or even implied that he is. He's reliable, not perfict. We're talking about training methods, not picking apart my dog... or anyone's dog for that matter.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

I am too but I think this is a GREAT thread and I am glad everyone is hashing out their differences in a calm manner. I have seen threads like this get VERY nasty & I want thank all of you for keeping this one civil.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

wow- that's a pretty balsy statement she said, that if you don't train all pr you should only have a fish. you should give her a snot-nosed pitbull, tell her to train him all pr!

amazincc- i see why you're confused, at least with my posts. i advocate marker training using a combination of corrections, nonreward, reward, and non-correcting for my basic obedience, as in "your dog will pass the cgc with flying colors, will respond to you in the commands that he has been taught, and will maintain his focus under pressure, you will have firm control of your dogs behaviors, even if he has behavioral problems, however he will still challenge you from time to time (he's not perfect) and all you have to do is follow through like *this* in those circumstances" I think this is where michelle and i and probably katie too are really similar. i believe in corrections for these types of goals, and i have a hard time seeing getting these results using PURE positive, which is NOT entirely what redqueen is talking about, but probably what that lady michelle met at her CD was talking about. i could be wrong though. i just haven't been successful at it nor have i seen anyone else be.

however, for my ADVANCED obedience, i have a totally different style, where i'm not so into corrections. my dog, and the dogs of those in my club and other local clubs in the area, have trained using little to no corrections to get this:

style of obedience (notice i don't use a video of myself because we're just not there yet! i only recently started training this way, and i've gotten great results, but these videos puts us to shame, and is the goal of course).

correcting tre on a pinch when we are out on a walk or doing a training demonstration, i get this sort of response out of him, "alright, you caught me off gaurd when i was doing something stupid, my bad." doing a similar correction during his advanced obedience routines, i throw him into serious avoidance. a well times verbal "no!" is more than enough. that being said, i'm not trying to make a statement about whether or not pure compulsion, pure positive, or anything in between works or doesn't work 100% of the time, i'm just saying, depending on the venue, i've seen MANY dogs that have never had a correction rock the house.

I have said this before, but I am a big fan of corrections that are not associated with me...using a prong on a long line is a great way to administer a correction aimed at prey drive because the prong becomes the bad guy when the correction happens several feet away from you and you have no part in the punishment, this type of correction is so perfectly timed that it can't be screwed up, and it is highly doubtful that your dog will get screwed up by this type of correction, and the best part of this type of correction is that it does not violate any trusting relationship that you have with your dog.

I have a prey driven dog that wanted to eat my cat.

Being a responsible pet owner, I do everything that I can to protect my cat including crating the dogs when I am not home...my cat is smart and will avoid the dog and we all live happily together. But I did not want to take any chances and to make sure that my cat would always be safe in my home, I set up scenarios all over the house and corrected my dog for showing any interest in the cat using a stealth correction.

I put the cat in the cat carrier to keep her safe and armed myself with tons of rolled up duct taped newspaper rolls and had a family member go in the room with the dog and repeatedly threw newspaper in her direction at the exact instant she showed any interest in the cat until she associated the cat with things falling from the sky, each time she was startled we asked for an obedience command and rewarded with treats and affection. We repeated this all over the house and now when the cat ventures out into the common areas, my dog will lay down and will not even look at the cat...my goal was to have her treat the cat as if the cat was the coffee table and it worked!!! My dog had no idea that I was the evil person who threw the newspaper rolls at her because I was sneaky about it and the startle corrections were perfectly timed.

I have used the long line and prong collar in the yard to work on her drive to kill rabbits and she does not chase them anymore. Koehler talks about the electrified chicken scenario in his book (which I would never ever do) but the principle is the same, the dog is allowed to go after the chicken and gets a correction from the actual object of it's prey driven obscession and this will effectively cure the drive to kill the farm animal.

I am not saying any of the methods discussed in this thread are right or wrong, but positive reinforcement methods used in a prey drive scenario will not work with my dog and could result in the cat or another animal being killed because in her aroused state, treats and clicks will be completely ignored, we use a combination of positive and negative methods that suit my dogs personality, she walked all over us until I started to incorporate corrections, she needs some consequence for ill behavior to balance her out. I do my best to make sure that the consequence is not associated with me so as not to ruin our trust.

"If I were not a man, I would like to be a bird. As I am a man, I do the next best thing, and ride a bicycle." -- Rev. Maltie, a cyclist in the late 1800s

Koehler talks about the electrified chicken scenario in his book (which I would never ever do) but the principle is the same, the dog is allowed to go after the chicken and gets a correction from the actual object of it's prey driven obscession and this will effectively cure the drive to kill the farm animal.

See, I would question this because it sounds like the dog - porcupine thing.

I'll have to read that section of the book, I think Demo has it.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

i agree about the prey drive scenario. for all my wanting to learn more about different types of training, i don't have time to let brooklyn wanting to eat my cat go ignored while i'm rewarding only positive behaviors, he needs to stop, NOW, or my cat will be dead or brook's face seriously scratched up (he's a sassy, stand my ground type of cat). i'm ABSOLUTELY going to use the long line with a pinch or an ecollar. i want to make a lasting impression, like "don't you EVER do that again!" however he does, even on a 30ft lead, understand he's on a leash and can't get away with crap. so maybe an ecollar would be better. seriously, you can grab that dog by the face and spin him around and he is just rigid with desire to go kill that cat, he fights you so hard to get out of your grasp. he spent the night at my house once and i crated him (obviously-i don't want to wake up to dead animals). at about 4am my cat climbed up on my bed. brooklyn burst through the crate onto my bed. that's when it all became clear to me- this is dangerous, brooklyn needs to understand SERIOUS consequences for these actions, because as of right now, he can't help himself.

however he does, even on a 30ft lead, understand he's on a leash and can't get away with poop. so maybe an ecollar would be better.

An e-collar would probably work. People use them for snake proofing dogs, if the dog looks at the snake they get it HARD with the collar. It only takes a few times before the dig takes off in another direction when it sees a snake. As long as the cat is being passive, the correction should be viewed as coming from chasing the cat, not actually from the cat. If the cat is hissing and screaming at him, don't try it then because it will probably just increase his desire for the cat to die.

you might try a super super light leash, put the collar on all day every day for a week or so, he'll be completely used to it. Then back tie him on the lightest leash that will hold him - light weight climbing rope is very strong - use a small clip and attach the leash so that it is not laying across his body.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.